## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS

N O . A P - 76, 326

W I LL I A M BE R K LE Y , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON DI RE CT AP P EA L F ROM THE TR I AL COURT ’ S RUL I NG ON A M O T I O N F I L E D I N C A U SE N O . 20000D 5705- 243- 1 I N T HE 2 4 3 J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT COURT

RD EL P ASO CO UNTY P E R C UR I AM . O P I N I O N O n M ar ch 26, 2010, appel l antfi l ed a pr o s e m ot i on i n the convi ct i ng cour ti n w hi ch h e a sk e d th e c o u rt to d isp e n se w ith th e ju d g m e n t an d e x e c u tio n o f ju d g m e n t a n d o rd e r h is i m m edi at e r el eas e. E s s ent i al l y , appel l antas s ert ed thathi s t r ans fert o and confi nement i n the T e x a s D e p a rtm e n t o f C rim in a l J u stic e - In stitu tio n a l D iv isio n p rio r to h is e x e c u tio n su b jec ts hi m t o m ul t i pl e puni s hm ent s i n vi ol at i on of t he D oubl e Jeopa r dy C l aus e. T he St at e fi l ed a

r es pons e t o t he m ot i on, and, on A pr i l 8, 2010, aft ercons i der i ng bot h appel l ant ’ s m ot i on andB E R K L E Y – 2

t he St at e’ s r es pons e, t he tr i al cour tdeni ed appe l l ant ’ s m ot i on i n i t s ent i r ety . A ppel l antnow purpor t s t o appea l t he tr i al cour t ’ s or deron hi s m ot i on. A s t hi s C our tr ece nt l yexpl ai ned i n Sk in n e r v . S ta te , S. W

. 3d , N o. A P- 76, 296 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . M ar. 4, 20 1 0 ):

T he L egis l ature prescr i bes t he jur i sdi c tio n o f t he ap pell at e cou rt s. C o n f e rrin g a d e f

e n d a n t’s g e n e ra l rig h t to a p p e a l, artic le 4 4 .0 2 p ro v id e s in r el evantpar t : “A defe ndant i n any cr i m i nal act i on has t he r i ghtof appe al under t he rul es her ei naft erpr es cr i bed .

. . . ” O u r c ases i ndi cat e thata “c r i m i nal act i on” no l ongerexi s ts a fter a defenda nthas been c onvi ct ed and the di r ect a p p e a l p ro c e ss f

r o m th a t co n v ictio n h a s b e e n e x h a u ste d . F o r e x a m p le, in h o l d i n g t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t h a s n o j u r i s d i c t i o n t o o r d e r p o s t c o n v i c t i o n DNA t es t i ng w hen the s t atut or yr equi r ement s w er e not m et , w e expl ai ned: “W hen a convi ct i on has been aff i r m ed on appea l and the mandat e has i s s ued, gener al j ur i s dict ion is notr es t or ed i n the tr i al cour t
. ” O nce ge ner al j ur i s di ct i on has expi r ed, and abs entdi r ect i on fr om a hi gher cour t , a tr i al cour tcan a ctonl yi f, and t o the ex tent, i ti s author i zed t o do s o bya s peci fi c s t atut orys our ce. L ikew ise, w e h av e h eld th at ap p ell ate jurisdicti o n to rev iew a tr ia l co u rt ’s o rd e r re latin g to p o stc o n v ictio n D N A tes tin g is lim ited to th e a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on confe r r ed byt he D N A t es t i ng s t atut e. (C ita tio n s o m itte d .) L i ke the def

endanti n Ski nner , app el l ant w as conv i ct ed, and the d i rect app eal process fr om t hatconvi ct i on has been e xhaus t ed. A lso li k e the def endanti n Ski nner , ap p ell an t’ s

m o t i o n t o d i s p e n s e w i t h j u d g m e n ta n d th e tr i a l c o u r t ’ s ru l i n g th e r e o n w a s b a s i c a l l y a

c o m p lain t re g a rd in g th e trial c o u rt’s o rd e r se tti n g a n e x e c u tio n d a te. N o sta tu te s p e c if ica lly author i zes an appea l fr om a t r i al cour t ’ s or derdeny i ng r el i ef on thi s type of a m ot i on. T he appea l i s di s m i s s ed. N o m ot i on forr ehea r i ng w i l l be ent ert ai ned. D o N ot Pub l i sh D el i ver ed: A pr i l 16, 2010